Domains and image schemas

Abstract

Despite diering theoretical views within cognitive semantics there appears to be a consensus on certain fundamental theoretical constructs: (i) the basic semantic unit is a mental concept; (ii) concepts cannot be understood independent of the domain in which they are embedded; (iii) conceptual structures represent a construal of experience, that is, an active mental operation; and (iv) concept categories involve prototypes and are organized by (at least) taxonomic relations. Although the basic constructs of ``concept'', ``domain'', ``construal'', and ``category structure'' go by dierent names, they are essentially the same among researchers in cognitive linguistics. We examine a fth theoretical construct, that of ``image schemas'' (recurring basic conceptual structures), and argue that image schemas are a subtype of domain. We begin with the theory of domains proposed by Langacker, which is similar to Fillmore's theory of frame semantics. Langacker distinguishes two types of domains, locational and congurational; we argue that it is concepts in domains that are locational or congurational, not the domains themselves. We then analyze image schemas and show how they function like domains, in which are found both locational and congurational concepts.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 304 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.